Another fairly obvious problem with Lessans' notion of vision is that if it were true, there's no apparent reason why there should be blind spots in our visual field. Of course, each eye does have a blind spot ... and the reason why is very well-understood.

__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.”

Presenting whatever as "I believe this is true..." or "In my view this" is one thing because what's to argue..."No you don't believe that!" or "No you do not hold that view!"*. That is not apologetics, and that is not presenting your beliefs as Truth For All!

*Of course that opens discussion such as the basis for your belief or view

You asked me to explain this that I posted to Wildy. I was describing the difference between evangelizing from personal beliefs/experiences and apologetics.

Apologists argue that they have an objective and proveable truth applicable to all, so they do not use qualifies such as "I think", "I believe" or "In my opinion".

They even avoid subjective descriptors such as "beautiful" because the "in my opinion" or "to me" is understood when someone says "That is beautiful". You are aware of that are you not? That the subjective aspect is completely understood?

Another fairly obvious problem with Lessans' notion of vision is that if it were true, there's no apparent reason why there should be blind spots in our visual field. Of course, each eye does have a blind spot ... and the reason why is very well-understood.

Oh hell, we can get all technical on their ass and start asking why there is a chiasm and all of the fun things you get from that!

Yes, that's is exactly what I'm saying. If the eyes were a sense organ, a dog should be able to recognize his master (without the added help of his sense of smell or hearing), because the light is bringing the image to his eyes. If a dog is able to recognize a ball, a plush toy, or other objects, he should be able to identify his master's features when the word 'master' is used. But I'm not sure if a dog is capable of taking a photograph of a group of features (which is more complicated than one object) and associating them with a word, which would allow recognition to occur.

But we already know that dogs can distinguish between otherwise identical objects by color alone. Not as many as humans because dogs only have dichromatic vision (essentially they are red-green color blind). You can design studies that would demonstrate that without the use of a command to "associate" those features with the red or blue ball (of course, in your version of things, how they know what features to associate with the word they learn if sight is not a sense is beyond me). You could for example give them two balls and whenever they pick a certain color, give them a treat. Which is probably how they've studied dog vision before.

Other problems are that dogs pay more attention to moving things than static images - but tv screens don't have a high enough frame rate for dogs (they distinguish movement better than humans). If you had a high frame rate video screen and a recording of sufficient frame rate, then a dog might react to a video of their master.

Also I ask again: should a deaf person with no sense of smell or taste be able to see?

It's a face that personally appeals to you. The word beautiful is a misnomer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

The word 'beautiful' is nothing more than a label that we attach to that which we find attractive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Exactly. The definition of the word beautiful is "pleasing to the mind or senses", it is simply one of the choices of words one can use to describe the personal appeal and is not limited to use with other humans by any means. How on Earth is it a "misnomer"?

These two expressions: "She is beautiful" and She appeals to me" are vastly different. In the new world people will be able to say or do whatever they want. What will stop them from using these words will come from the knowledge that they inaccurately symbolize reality. More importantly, they will be causing a serious hurt to those individuals who now believe they don't possess what others have.

Definition of misnomer: A misnomer is a wrong or inaccurate name or designation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Until these words are removed

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Do you want to remove all words from the language that describe subjective experiences rather that externally existent objects?

If the words don't represent the truth, and people develop inferiority complexes as a result, yes, they need to be removed. If a person uses the term 'beautiful sunset' no one is being hurt. The only standard we are using is whether something that is said or done is a concrete, not imaginary, hurt to another.

Shit that is both a frightening suggestion and an interesting creative writing challenge. A world without subjective qualifiers? Such a world would be boring stifling awful a world.

Those are the kinds of challenges that would need to be addressed by lawmakers (not lawyers; they are going to be displaced) who will determine what words and actions are first blows. Obviously, we wouldn't want to hurt anyone under the changed conditions (I realize that most of us wouldn't want to hurt anyone even now), and if using these qualifiers indirectly cause harm, then we wouldn't want to use them.

Wow, who are all these fragile people that develop inferiority complexes because the word beautiful is in our vocabulary?

Quote:

Those are the kinds of challenges that would need to be addressed by lawmakers (not lawyers; they are going to be displaced) who will determine what words and behaviors are first blows. Obviously, we wouldn't want to hurt anyone under the changed conditions (I realize that most of us wouldn't want to hurt anyone even now), and if using these qualifiers indirectly cause harm, then we wouldn't want to use them.

Much of what we learn we take at face value, at least when we're in school. We take what we learn from our professors and accept that what is in the textbooks is true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I think textbooks are the poorest tool used in education, actually. Also, I do not have a college degree in case you are wondering if I adhere to some dogma that education=truth. I have many threads regarding education and schools and such in the Study Hall if you're interested.

I would be interested, but I want to finish this thread before I start reading others, or I'll get totally sidetracked.

Quote:

I can see that you question everything LadyShea, which is a good thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I was raised by hippies.

Really? Then there is something good to be said for my generation.

Quote:

No, this guy isn't around anymore. His name was Dave.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And what was the scope of his involvement? Did he do any writings or explanations?

No, he was a family friend. He did go to Canada and saw that expo and when he saw a sign that said the eyes are not a sense organ, it got him interested in the book because he knew that Lessans was also referring to the eyes as not being a sense organ. He also loved the idea of no blame, but he didn't realize that blame and punishment are necessary in our present environment.

Quote:

In the case of hearing, a nerve ending is being stimulated by frequencies and wavelengths and is then interpreted by the brain, whereas in the case of sight, there is nothing in the light that sends signals to the brain to be interpreted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So light frequencies and wavelengths are not in the light? But sound frequencies and wavelengths are in the sound?

No, they both have wavelengths and frequencies but the properties of light are different than sound. I don't know if the fact that light does not require a medium means anything in relation to this discovery, but there are definite differences.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are aware that light is electromagnetic radiation, correct? You are aware the brain is an electromagnetic system, correct?

So what are you implying?

Quote:

It seems logical, but it doesn't work that way according to Lessans' observations. Again, I don't want people to get defensive. If we can't resolve this issue, we should move on and come back when everyone is cooled off.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am not defensive nor do I need to cool off. I am trying to understand why you believe Lessans is correct

I didn't mean you personally. But there are some people in here who are ready to blow their top.

I don't have a clue whether the Jupiter moons example was indisputable.

It is!

Quote:

As I said just now, if there is no other possible explanation, then Lessans would be wrong.

He is!

OK! the train wreck is over. Nothing more to see here, folks.

Quote:

You tell me, and I'll tell you if you're correct.

I'm supposed to tell you what your hard evidence is?

Quote:

I'm not questioning The Lone Ranger's knowledge. His knowledge is based on man's present understanding and he does a very good job. I even told him so. But how can you tell me to agree with something I don't?

If you don't agree that the world is round instead of flat, that is your problem, not mine.

Quote:

I'm truly sorry if I'm taking you out of your comfort zone. That was never my intention.

This is typical of the condescension of the True Believer. The idea that you are presenting Revolutionary New Ideas that make people uncomfortable. Your "ideas," if one may use such a word to grace this bullshit, don't make anyone uncomfortable. It is kind of uncomfortable, though, to watch you continue to flounder and flail about and make a fool of yourself. Watching another person behave like this does rouse feelings of discomfort in all but sadists.

The rest of your questions deal with empirical data, and I cannot give you that. I can only give you his astute observations.

You can't give the empirical data. But you can give his astute observations.

Empirical means "observed," for fuck's sake!

David, stop using the word 'fuck' please.

Quote:

Empirical means testable, falsifiable, and proved through the gathering of data. Even though his conclusions came from astute observation and sound reasoning, there is a way to test his knowledge empirically.

Erm, derm, once again, what the fuck does the above even mean? If his fucking "ideas" came from fucking "astute observation," then they are fucking empirical. But you just fucking said that you can't provide the fucking empircal data! Fuck the what? I mean, like, fuck!

He was trying to show that the eye did not meet the definition of sense, just as you can't put a potato in the same category as fruit because it doesn't meet the definition. Yes, photons make contact with the optic nerve. They are a condition of sight. We cannot see without light being present.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, I understand the potato and fruit analogy, what I don't understand is why he thought that. He asserts that with the senses are "stimuli from the outside world making contact with a nerve ending"

Light is not carrying any stimuli as sound does; light is a necessary condition for sight. Sound is carried through solids, liquids, and gases. Light does not carry stimuli through any of these mediums. You are assuming that the stimuli is in the light itself, but it is not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So in the case of sight, stimuli (light photons) from the outside world make contact with a nerve (the optic nerve). That perfectly fits with Lessan's definition of sense, correct? So why is sight not a sense?

As I said, it is a necessary condition of sight, but it is not bringing stimuli (as sound does) to the optic nerve where it is then transformed into an image.

I'm not at all being mean or unfair, but I very much doubt that you could design and conduct a proper experiment. Do you know what a control is and why it's important? Do you know what confounding variables are and how to control for them? Do you understand the necessity of replication and the danger of pseudoreplication? Do you know what double blinding is? Designing a proper experiment is a lot more difficult than you might think.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not sure what a confounding variable or double blinding is. I realize how important it is for an experiment to be reliable.

I looked up confounding variable and I understand what it means now. I already knew what a double blind study is, but I got thrown off when you called it double blinding. My son is always asking me when I tell him I found some information on the internet, "Were double blind studies done?" He says you can't know anything by a few case studies, which is what you were saying. My son is a radiologist and very methodical in his thinking. If someone hears of a case study where a person used a certain alternative therapy because conventional treatments failed, and they started to get better, we don't know for sure if returning health was from the treatment or from a placebo effect. There are occasionally spontaneous remissions that are unexplainable scientifically.

Here, try a little experiment. Go out on a bright day. Stand around for a few minutes. Then immediately go into a very dark room. Explain what you experience. Extra credit for explaining why you experience this.

Here is another experiment to test your claim that light does not carry any stimuli as sound does: Take a pair of scissors, and stick them into your eyes. Tell us what you see afterward!

Quote:

Sound is carried through solids, liquids, and gases.

Ja?

Quote:

Light does not carry stimuli through any of these mediums.

Bullshit! Light can pass through liquids and gases, solids not so much; but then we are only talking about visible light. Have you ever heard of X-rays? Do you know what those are?

Quote:

You are assuming that the stimuli is in the light itself, but it is not.

Honestly, what the fuck does this even mean?

Quote:

As I said, it is a necessary condition of sight, but it is not bringing stimuli (as sound does) to the optic nerve where it is then transformed into an image.

What? Sound brings stimuls to the optic nerve, but not light?

Or maybe you meant: "Light is not bringing stimulus to the optic nerve, as sound does to the eardrums."

But that is exactly what it is doing! Where the fuck did you ever get the idiotic notion otherwise?

The difference between light waves and sound waves is this: sound requires a medium to carry it; sound waves are a pattern on the substance conveying it. Light, however, does not require a medium; that's why light can travel through a vacuum and sound cannot. Light also displays wave-like and particle-like behavior, depending on what one looks for; this is from quantum physics, and rather mysterious, but the actual effects of light on the eye are well understood, some shatterpot's protests to the contrary notwithstanding.

Here, try a little experiment. Go out on a bright day. Stand around for a few minutes. Then immediately go into a very dark room. Explain what you experience. Extra credit for explaining why you experience this.

Here is another experiment to test your claim that light does not carry any stimuli as sound does: Take a pair of scissors, and stick them into your eyes. Tell us what you see afterward!

Quote:

Sound is carried through solids, liquids, and gases.

Ja?

Quote:

Light does not carry stimuli through any of these mediums.

Bullshit! Light can pass through liquids and gases, solids not so much; but then we are only talking about visible light. Have you ever heard of X-rays? Do you know what those are?

Quote:

You are assuming that the stimuli is in the light itself, but it is not.

Honestly, what the fuck does this even mean?

Quote:

As I said, it is a necessary condition of sight, but it is not bringing stimuli (as sound does) to the optic nerve where it is then transformed into an image.

What? Sound brings stimuls to the optic nerve, but not light?

Or maybe you meant: "Light is not bringing stimulus to the optic nerve, as sound does to the eardrums."

But that is exactly what it is doing! Where the fuck did you ever get the idiotic notion otherwise?

I concede. I'm getting in over my head. I said before the way he came to these conclusions had more to do with how the brain learns words (which indirectly led him to his findings). If his findings regarding words are wrong; then he was wrong. I am not going to get into areas that are not my expertise. If you don't think he has proof, then continue to believe the eyes are a sense organ. I'm not forcing you to believe anything that doesn't make absolute sense to you.

If you don't think he has proof, then continue to believe the eyes are a sense organ. I'm not forcing you to believe anything that doesn't make absolute sense to you.

Oh, yes, thank you very much. I'll continue to believe that eyes are a sense organ, for the simple reason that they are a fucking sense organ!

BTW, if you don't think they are a sense organ, then what the fuck do you think they are??

Oh, and, if eyes aren't stimulated by light, what happens when you put a scissors into your eyes? What happens when you step out of a bright day into a dark room? Did you notice those questions? Can you answer them?